Two of CNN’s morning hosts who will remain anonymous (why give them any more publicity, eh?) have in all seriousness proposed an end to or regulation of anonymous blogging that seems to encourage smearing and slander. This they say is the “teachable moment” of the Shirley Sherrod affair. [Newsbusters]
Hello. Andrew Breitbart is not an anonymous blogger. He says he did not edit the tape of Shirley Sherrod’s speech. [TPMmuckraker].
Consider that there is plenty of mud slinging going on in the lamestream media without even considering bloggers. As a matter of fact bloggers already suffer a certain amount of filtering. Google now often separates stories from news outlets from stories by bloggers. In short, Google is warning users that they may be entering an area different from that of the world of syndicated news gathering and opinion. Will Google’s ability to classify become a basis for a ratings system? They have proved the technology is there to filter us. Perhaps there will be one big blogger portal. They have made of themselves a kind of gatekeeper.
Many bloggers garner attention by catchy titles and hard hitting reports and there is nothing wrong with that. It is a kind of presentation unavailable elsewhere so why kill it off. It was invented by bloggers and gets people to think. Things “outre” have been around a few hundred years. They make the point faster than many other formats and they may make hard-hitting comments about political figures in the process. But a good site like this does not cross the line into slander. They entertain and provoke thought.
The lamestream media appears suspect when seeking to regulate bloggers. Bloggers are a form of competition. If a blog slanders, it’s right there on the net and can easily be referred for review and removed if warranted. There is already sufficient case law covering anonymous blogging most of which is protected under the first amendment. There is a difference between protection of anonymous blogging and slander. Slander is never protected. For more information about the legal aspects about anonymous blogging, consult law.com.
It is well to remember that just as surely as there are those who have anonymously infiltrated Tea Party rallies to disrupt them with inappropriate anti-Obama signs or slogans, there are individuals who are not really part of the blogosphere who become “anonymous bloggers” on the internet and who function in the same way with the same motives. Think about it.
And can we talk about the fact that you have promoted THE most opinionated journalist, Rick Sanchez, to an evening slot? He manipulates news like no other man in the media. I was watching one day when he said “here at CNN we not only broadcast the news, we create it.” Now tell me all your fears about anonymous bloggers.
©On My Watch…the writings of SamHenry. Registration Pending
DarcsFalcon
July 24, 2010
Like you said, there’s nothing “anonymous” about Brietbart! This is just their liberal knee-jerk response to shut up anyone and everyone who had a different opinion than they do.
People – decent ones anyway – will seek out the truth. We all love the truth bombshell that we can drop on people. And now that the “power of the press” has been taken by the people, the bloggers, we’re not going to give it up without a fight, because it’s our right. So-called journalists don’t have the market cornered on news.
Have you read about that whole “journolist” scandal? Their bias has been outed, no matter how hard they’ll try – and they will – they can’t put that toothpaste back in the tube.
DarcsFalcon
July 24, 2010
Hmm, my comment disappeared! It got eaten by the WP comment monster! Might be in your spam folder – in any case, I’ll post it again. (Thank you Lazarus!) Please feel free to delete the duplicate.
Like you said, there’s nothing “anonymous” about Brietbart! This is just their liberal knee-jerk response to shut up anyone and everyone who had a different opinion than they do.
People – decent ones anyway – will seek out the truth. We all love the truth bombshell that we can drop on people. And now that the “power of the press” has been taken by the people, the bloggers, we’re not going to give it up without a fight, because it’s our right. So-called journalists don’t have the market cornered on news.
Have you read about that whole “journolist” scandal? Their bias has been outed, no matter how hard they’ll try – and they will – they can’t put that toothpaste back in the tube.
samhenry
July 24, 2010
You were right. There were two comments from you in spam. Spam is crazy. I have worked with Vicki at Frugal Cafe for a year now and none of her links get through spam. Nothing personal, DF.
Thanks for reminding me. I do need to read up on the journolist scandal. It’s incredible to me that concepts debated and crafted into law over 2 centuries ago are coming back as news. HISTORY is no longer important to people so they will just have to chase their tails and reinvent the wheel I guess.
DarcsFalcon
July 24, 2010
This post hates me.
samhenry
July 24, 2010
Taking on a web page is like taking on the liberals. Don’t go there. Just be confident in your views and way of life.
steve
July 25, 2010
Here’s something you might find interesting that they have in store for bloggers:
http://www.littlemag.com/mar-apr01/cass.html
I don’t know if I provided that for you yet.
samhenry
July 25, 2010
No you did not give this link to me yet. I am delighted. I processed the office papers for the premiere “little magazine” in the EARLY 20th century that was the model for the New Yorker. I will be interested not only in this article but in the magazine. Thanks, Steve.
DarcKnyt
July 26, 2010
This was a scary thing to me. First, that the attempt to silence opposition is given credence at all and not laughed out of existence. Second, that the ones stupid enough to want this are also stupid enough to use the term “slander” when the word should be “libel”.
Says it all, in my estimation.
samhenry
July 26, 2010
It was scary to me too. And thanks for reminding me of the difference between slander and libel.